by
Damien F. Mackey
‘Something is very rotten in
the state of’ a part of our conventional AD history.
Introduction
What! What! What! The Byzantine
emperor, Heraclius (reign, 610 to 641 AD), fighting a “Battle of Nineveh” in
627 AD!
And here I am mistakenly under the
impression that the city of Nineveh was completely destroyed in c. 612 BC, and
that it lay hopelessly dead and buried until it was archaeologically
resurrected by Layard in the mid-C19th AD.
But perhaps I am not alone in thinking
this. For, according to: http://www.bible-history.com/assyria_archaeology/archaeology_of_ancient_assyria_nineveh.html
Nineveh
was the famous capital of ancient [Assyria] and one of the mightiest cities of
all antiquity. It is situated on the east bank of the Tigris River just opposite
modern Mosul. According to the Scriptures Nimrod was the founder of Nineveh.
Genesis 10:11
11 "From that land he (Nimrod) went to Assyria and
built Nineveh."
The
ancient Hebrew prophets foretold of Nineveh’s destruction and utter desolation:
Nahum 2:8-10
"Though Nineveh of old was like a pool of water, Now
they flee away. 'Halt! Halt!" they cry; But no one turns back. Take spoil
of silver! Take spoil of gold! There is no end of treasure, Or wealth of every
desirable prize. She is empty, desolate, and waste! The heart melts, and the
knees shake; Much pain is in every side, And all their faces are drained of
color."
In fact
Nineveh was so laid waste that it was considered a total myth of the Bible
throughout most of the recent centuries, that is until it was discovered by Sir
Austen Layard in the nineteenth century. The site of ancient Nineveh was
extensively excavated and its occupational levels reach far back to the
beginning of civilization.
[End of quotes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The importance of Heraclius' reign as a historical
watershed was recognized
by Gibbon two hundred years ago”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That there is something quite rotten
about our historical perception of this so-called “Dark Age” era is apparent
from the research of German scholars, Heribert
Illig and Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz, the latter of whom has written, in “Did the
Early Middle Ages Really Exist?” http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf
The easiest way to understand doubts about the accepted
chronology and ‘well-known’ history is to seriously systematize the problems of
medieval research. This will lead us to detect a pattern which proves my thesis
and gives reason to assume that a phantom period of approximately 300 years has
been inserted between 600 AD to 900 AD, either by accident, by
misinterpretation of documents or by deliberate falsification (Illig 1991).
This period and all events that are supposed to have happened therein never existed.
Buildings and artifacts ascribed to this period really belong to other periods.
To prove this the Carolingian Chapel at Aachen will serve as the first example.
….
[End of quote]
Revisionist historians are well aware
of the so-called “Dark Ages” period (c. 1200-700 BC) that has been artificially
imposed upon, say, ancient Hittite and Greek history, and well exposed by Peter
James et al. in Centuries of Darkness. In the same year that
this book was first published, in 1991, German historian Heribert Illig wrote
his “Phantom Time Hypothesis”. Just as Dr.
Immanuel Velikovsky had pioneered a revision of BC history, so have these
German writers, Illig and Niemitz, done the same for AD history. And I believe
that both efforts were necessary, though I am far from accepting, in either
case (the BC or the AD revision), all of the details of these pioneering works.
And this last comment leads me to mention another enthusiastic reviser of ancient
history, Emmet Scott, who has now also become vitally interested and
well-informed about the AD revision. I neither accept all of Scott’s efforts in
BC or AD, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading his helpful A Guide to the
Phantom Dark Age, at: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lIpYAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=emmet+s
For an English speaker, such as I, it
is easier reading than the above-mentioned German efforts, and Emmet manages to
fill in some areas that they may have left untouched. I thoroughly recommend
the reading of this book, though with those reservations to be kept in mind.
Nineveh
But, getting back to Nineveh, it
figures again in the biography of the prophet Mohammed, whose period of floruit, from his first supposed revelation until
his death (610-632 AD), is practically identical to that conventionally
assigned to emperor Heraclius (610 to 641 AD). Mohammed, I have argued (and others who have
written somewhat similarly, e.g., E. Scott), was by no means a true historical
character but something of a biblical composite. See my:
Biography of
the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History
There we learned that Mohammed had
supposedly encountered a young man from Nineveh – quite an anomaly. And the
pair are said to have discussed the prophet Jonah, whom Mohammed called his
“brother”.
I followed up this Part One with:
Biography of
the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History. Part Two: From Birth
to Marriage
Strangely, then, we are finding that
the ancient city of Nineveh, destroyed in the late C7th BC, and not uncovered
again until the mid-C19th AD - a period of approximately two and a half
millennia, according to conventional estimates - experienced an eerie phase of
‘resurgence’ in the C7th AD, roughly halfway between these two cut-off
points.
This is clearly a pseudo-history.
Again, Mohammed supposedly was
contemporaneous with a Jew, one Nehemiah, who is like the BC biblical governor
of that name strangely resuscitated in ‘another Persian era’. See my:
Two Supposed
Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time
It all makes us have to worry, then,
about Heraclius himself.
We read in a review of Walter E.
Kaegi’s Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge
University Press), that this Byzantine emperor was a ‘most strange and
incoherent figure’ http://www.historytoday.com/charles-freeman/heraclius-emperor-byzantium
Heraclius still appears to be one
of the strangest and most incoherent figures that history has recorded. His
reign is still considered as alternations of wondrous actions and inaction.
It is this inadequate conclusion from a biography of 1905 that Professor Kaegi
seeks to confront in this full and detailed life of the Byzantine emperor,
Heraclius. It is a major challenge. The sources for Heraclius’ life are diverse
and discordant and remain virtually silent on his personality. He offended as
many as he impressed and his defeats were every bit as spectacular as his
victories. ….
[End of quote]
The intrigue continues.
The advent of Heraclius upon the
‘historical’ scene coincided perfectly with that of Illig’s “phantom time”, as
Scott has well observed:
It was Heraclius, of course,
who first came into military conflict with the Arabs, and it was in his reign
that Constantinople lost Jerusalem to the Arabs, and it was in his reign
that Constantinople lost Jerusalem to the Persians, in 614, a date which,
according to Heribert Illig, marks the commencement of the phantom time.
….
The importance of Heraclius'
reign as a historical watershed was recognized by Gibbon two hundred years ago.
In Chapter 48 of the Decline and Fall he wrote: “From the time of
Heraclius, the Byzantine theatre is contracted and darkened: the line of
empire, which had been defined by the laws of Justinian and the arms of
Belisarius, recedes on all sides from our view; the Roman name, the proper
subject of our inquiries, is reduced to a narrow corner of Europe, to the
lonely suburbs of Constantinople”.
Darkened and contracted
indeed. Gibbon relied only upon written history, but that picture of
contraction and darkening has been fully confirmed by archeology, which, in the
past half century, has been unable to cast any fresh light upon the next three
centuries of Byzantine history. On the contrary, excavators have been
astonished by almost the complete absence of almost all signs of life during
the latter seventh, eighth, ninth, and early tenth centuries.
The same darkness manifests
itself in the West.
[End of quote]
We may need to do some
unlearning
“Unlearning the Dark Ages” is the
title of this review of another book by Emmet Scott, Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a
Controversy. Once again, whilst I accept the basic
thrust of this, I would not necessarily espouse every single idea presented
here (https://didactsreach.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/unlearning-dark-ages.html):
Unlearning the Dark Ages
The best thing about reading iconoclastic, revisionist
historians is that, in the process of reading and understanding their works and
their ideas, you learn just how badly your schooling has let you down. Such was
certainly the case when I read the truth about the Great Depression through the
work of Amity Shlaes and her outstanding The Forgotten Man: A New History of
the Great Depression. Such was true of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism,
which proved to be a thorough demolition job of the "standard" understanding
of the (minimal) differences between fascism and communism. Such was the result
of reading Thomas DiLorenzo's The Real Lincoln.
And now, to that distinguished list, I must add a new book:
Emmett Scott's superb precis analysis of one of the most
controversial theories in the field of classical and post-Roman history, Mohammed
and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy.
The book looks at the groundbreaking work and analysis of
French historian Henri Pirenne, who came up with what was at the time the most
radical rethinking of the history of the Dark Ages ever proposed. And to
understand just why his proposal was so strange and so difficult for mainstream
historians to digest, we need to briefly look at the "accepted" view
of the way that the Dark Ages came about, how they led to the Middle Ages, and
finally how the Renaissance came about.
The "Received Wisdom"
If your schooling was anything like mine, you were taught
that the period following the fall of the Roman Empire, up until the advent of
the Carolingian Age (i.e. the age of Charlemagne and his descendants) was a
true "Dark Age", in which the wisdom, literacy, and artistic
accomplishments of the Roman Empire decayed and disappeared as civilisation
itself retreated and, at certain points, was in danger of dying out completely.
You were taught that the 6th through to the 9th centuries were a time of
backwardness and decay, and that during this time the great cities of antiquity
withered and died as the empire that the Romans had spent centuries to build
up, crumbled into dust in the West and was tenuously guarded in the East by
Byzantium. You were taught that the Church became an instrument of terror and
repression, suppressing knowledge and condemning those who pursued forbidden topics
as witches and heretics.
You were even perhaps taught that the Islamic world
flourished into a true Golden Age as Europe retreated into backwardness and
squalor. You were told that it was the Islamic world's preservation of ancient
Greek and Latin texts that saved European civilisation; when Arabic and Persian
scholars took those same books, translated centuries earlier into Arabic, back
to Europe to be translated right back into European languages, the resulting
transfer of knowledge kicked off the great rebirth of the Renaissance and
eventually culminated in the Enlightenment.
All told, you were taught to think that the period from
about 550AD (or thereabouts) to very roughly 850AD or 900AD was a
three-century-long period of barbarism and backwardness so terrible that it
very nearly destroyed what was left of Europe.
An Easily Believed Yarn
Obviously, I am skipping over certain key details here, but
that is very broadly the historical consensus that existed before Henri Pirenne
walked onto the scene. Both Edward Gibbon and J.B. Bury, perhaps the greatest
historians the world has seen since Herodotus and Plutarch, argued
convincingly, based on the evidence available to them at the time, that the
disappearance of Roman civilisation from Western Europe resulted in a truly
terrible Dark Age, and that it was Islam that saved the West. And that meme has
persisted down to the present day, to the point where it is taught as
near-Gospel in high schools and universities the world over.
There is just one problem with the entire theory: it is complete
and arrant nonsense.
So said Henri Pirenne, who attacked the consensus
understanding of the history of the period on every front. Drawing on the most
up-to-date archaeological discoveries made up to that point, and looking
carefully at geological, climatological, and contemporary source data, his
conclusions were starkly at odds with the prevailing wisdom:
- Contrary to popular belief, the barbarians who settled the territories once occupied by Roman legions rapidly became Christians and Romanised all on their own, and quickly re-established a civilisation that was in many ways even more advanced than the one it had replaced;
- Trade between Europe, Britain, North Africa, and the Eastern Roman Empire flourished between 476AD and 650AD, creating massive prosperity and economic growth;
- The population of Europe did NOT shrink gradually but in fact entered a boom period, which abruptly cut off when the true Dark Age descended upon Europe;
- Most crucially, the specific reason why a Dark Age hit Europe was Islam itself
That last conclusion is by far the most unsettling. Henri
Pirenne did not deny that a Dark Age did indeed descend across Europe; what he
contested was the specific dates which were accorded to the period. And his
analysis showed that the true Dark Ages corresponded virtually perfectly with
the first great wave of Islamic expansion.
A Controversy Revisited
As can be imagined, such a radical revision of accepted
historical narrative was a huge shock to most of Pirenne's contemporaries. In
his analysis of and expansion upon Pirenne's work, Emmett Scott notes that even
today, most historians find Pirenne's conclusions so difficult to swallow that
they force themselves through all sorts of contortions of logic, evidence, and
fact to avoid the extremely uncomfortable realities that those ideas would lead
to.
Yet the evidence itself is beyond dispute. And Mr. Scott
presents that evidence in a book that is a true pleasure to read.
He starts with the decline and fall of the Roman Empire
itself, and carries on with his analysis all the way through to the latter 11th
Century, when the Middle Ages were well and truly established. And his
analysis, presented calmly, clearly, and in considerable yet fascinating
detail, is extraordinary.
The history in this book reads like a detective story- and
what a fascinating story it is. His tale is the forgotten history of a Europe
that we are only now beginning to see and understand.
As Mr. Scott points out, the fall of the Roman Empire was
not in fact quite the rupture that we are taught it was in school. It was
actually basically a simple transition; the last Roman emperor simply stepped
off the throne and handed the crown to the Germanic chieftain Odoacer. At that
point in time, the population of the Roman Empire had indeed been in long-term
decline; the stock of "ethnic Romans" had dwindled significantly,
hence the reason why barbarian Germanic and Gothic tribes were allowed to
settle within Roman territories in exchange for their service to the Empire.
And that downward trend in population did continue into the early 6th Century.
But then something remarkable happened. The
"barbarians" began to civilise. And they did so at a truly astonishing pace.
The Visigothic kingdoms of Spain emerged into a true Golden
Age. In Gaul, the Merovingians consolidated and united the Gaulish tribes into
a true nation and began building upon the centuries of accumulated wisdom of
the Romans and the Greeks. England, a frontier outpost long abandoned by the
Romans at that point, rebuilt a true Christian civilisation;
Caledonia (Scotland) and Hibernia (Ireland), dreary and miserable
islands that they were, also began to experience rapid social, technological,
and spiritual progress, thanks in no small part to the introduction and rapid
uptake of the Christian faith to those benighted lands.
From Spain in the west to Carthage in the south to
Byzantium in the East, a true Mediterranean civilisation began to take shape.
The existence of expensive and expertly crafted African Red Slip pottery was
proven well into the 7th Century in the northern reaches of former Roman
territories, including Britain. In the East, the Byzantines held the line
against the Persians, but were strong and flourishing in their own right.
Mr. Scott presents a true mountain of evidence showing that
there was no Dark Age in Europe, right up to the middle of the 7th
Century. In its place was an advanced culture in which art, science, and
literature flourished at a rate not since since the days of the Rome of Marcus
Aurelius. Not even the great plague of the Emperor Justinian's time, in the
mid-6th Century, could put a stop to Europe's rapid pace of development.
Within and through it all, the Holy Church spearheaded the
revival and revolution. The Benedictine order of monks proved instrumental in
preserving, recording, and building upon the knowledge of the ancients. As Mr.
Scott points out, there is no other group in all of human history that
has done more to advance the knowledge and happiness of our species, and there
is no institution in history that has ever done more for Mankind than the
Church of Christ.
And then, suddenly, it all went horribly wrong.
Rupture
From the second half of the 7th Century, the evidence tells
us that something happened which irrevocably changed Europe's fate.
The advances of the previous two hundred years came to a screeching halt.
Thriving metropolises were wiped out almost overnight, never to be resettled.
Population growth crashed; trade across the Mediterranean collapsed; the
fortunes of the Byzantines lurched from disaster to catastrophe with almost
monotonous regularity for the better part of three hundred years.
And so the situation remained, until the Carolingian Age
was well and truly established, and mediaeval Europe came into existence.
We know what the Middle Ages were like- or at least, we think we
do. In reality, what we were taught in school about the Middle Ages is also
basically wrong- in reality, the Middle Ages saw the advent of another advanced
civilisation which was brought to its knees by the Plague. But that is not the
era with which Pirenne or Scott concerned themselves. They were interested in
the reason why an age of progress and expansion collapsed so quickly.
The answer can be summed up in one word: Islam.
The archaeological and historical evidence that Mr. Scott
presents shows beyond a doubt that the extremely sudden reversal in Europe's
fortunes coincides perfectly with the beginnings of the first wave
of Islamic expansion, following the "prophet" Mohammed's
establishment of a power base in Medina as a warlord.
In the latter quarter of the book, Mr. Scott presents a
powerful analysis of the Islamic doctrine of war and shows that the canonical
origin story of Islam, already highly suspect, is basically garbage. He further
points out that the reason why the Arabs were able to expand so rapidly is not
because of any great military skill on their part; the Arabs, a nomadic and
squabbling people, were hugely outnumbered and outclassed in every way by the
Byzantine Empire. Instead, it is far more likely that they made an alliance
with the Sassanid Persians, and that the early victories of "Arab"
Islam were in fact backed and financed by the vast wealth and power of the
Persian empire in the East.
And anyone who knows anything about Islamic doctrines
regarding warfare, piracy, the taking of slaves, and the division of the world
into dar al-Harb and dar al-Islam will know that Mr. Scott
is talking perfect sense when he points out that it was the rapid expansion of
Islam that caused Mediterranean commerce and prosperity to come to a crashing
halt almost overnight.
A Myth Debunked
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Mr. Scott's work
is his analysis of the much-ballyhoed "Islamic golden age". This is
another standard trope that we are all taught in school. We are taught to
believe the politically correct lie that Islam was an enlightened religion of
peace, which fostered scientific advancement, mathematics, medicine, physics,
optics, and literature at a pace never seen in the West.
This is almost all complete BS.
In reality, whatever advances that the Islamic world made
during the Dark Ages, which it created, were due to the works of far
greater philosophers and authors from the Roman and Byzantine eras. In fact,
the greatest findings attributed to "Arab" mathematicians and
philosophers were actually Persian in origin. Indeed, the great
advances in mathematics, such as the "Arabic" numbering system and
the "Arabic" concept of zero and the "Arabic" method of
algebra, are all Indian and Greek discoveries given a fresh coat of paint by Persian philosophers.
The true face of the Arabic Islamic empire of the time was
in fact remarkably similar to what we see happening with ISIS today. It was
backward, intolerant, abusive of Jews and Christians alike, utterly ruthless in
dealing with pagans, violent, intolerant, and totally incapable of responsible
governance over the territories that it conquered- which were once the
wealthiest and most advanced creations of the children of the Roman Empire.
There is far, far more to this remarkable book than I can
possibly do justice to here. But I cannot recommend it highly enough to anyone
interested in the history of Islam's interactions with the West. It is a
scholarly work of the first order that is as readable as any best-selling
thriller, and as thought-provoking as anything that Thomas DiLorenzo has ever
written. It will make you sit up and think; it will shock and amaze you; and
you will very likely walk away from it with your entire understanding of the
post-Roman era of history turned upside-down.
Part Two:
A
composite character to end all composites
Heraclius seems to have one foot in Davidic Israel, one in the old Roman
Republic, and, whatever feet may be left (because this definitely cannot be
right), in the Christian era.
What a mix of a man is this emperor Heraclius! What a conundrum! What a
puzzle!
I feel sorry for Walter Emil Kaegi, who has valiantly attempted to write a
biography of him: Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium. The accomplishment of
this scholarly exercise I believe to be a complete impossibility. And I could
simply base this view on what I read from Kaegi’s book itself (pp. 12 and 13):
The story of
Heraclius, as depicted in several literary historical traditions, is almost
Herodotean in his experience of fickle fortune's wheel of triumph and
tragedy, of ignorance or excessive pride, error, and disaster.
Mackey’s comment: To classify the
story of Heraclius as “Herodotean” may be appropriate. Herodotus, ostensibly
“the Father of History” (Cicero), has also been called “the Father of Lies” by
critics who claim that his ‘histories’ are little more than tall tales.
Heraclius, as we now
read, is spread ‘all over the place’ (my description):
At one level his name
is associated with two categories of classical nomenclature: (1) ancient
classical offices such as the consulship, as well as (2) many of the most
exciting heroes, places, precedents, and objects of classical, ancient Near
Eastern, and Biblical antiquity: Carthage, Nineveh, Jerusalem, the
vicinity of Alexander the Great's triumph over the Persians at Gaugamela,
Noah's Ark, the Golden Gate in Jerusalem, Arbela, the fragments of the
True Cross, Damascus, Antioch, perhaps even ancient Armenia's Tigra- nocerta,
and of course, Constantinople.
Mackey’s comment: According to a late
source (conventionally 600 years after Heraclius): “The historian Elmacin
recorded in the 13th Century that in the 7th Century the Byzantine Emperor
Heraclius had climbed Jabal Judi in order to see the place where the Ark had
landed”. http://bibleprobe.com/noahark-timeline.htm
At least the correct
mountain may figure here. See my:
Mountain of Landing for the Ark of Noah
Biblically, Heraclius
has been compared with such luminaries as Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel,
and even with Jesus Christ.
And no wonder in the
case of David! For we read in Steven H. Wander’s article for JSTOR, “The Cyprus
Plates and the “Chronicle” of Fredegar” (pp. 345-346):
…. there is one
episode from the military career of Heraclius that bears a striking similarity
to the story of David and Goliath.
Byzantine chroniclers record that during his campaign against the
Emperor Chosroes in 627, Heraclius fought the Persian general Razatis in single
combat, beheading his opponent like the Israelite hero.6 George of Pisidia, the
court poet, may have even connected this contemporary event with the life of
David. In his epic panegyrics on Heraclius' Persian wars, he compared the
Emperor to such Old Testament figures as Noah, Moses, and Daniel; unfortunately
the verses of his Heraclias that, in all likelihood, dealt in detail
with the combat are lost.6
[End of quote]
That fateful year 627
AD again, the year also of the supposed Battle of Nineveh said to have been
fought and won by Heraclius!
According to Shaun
Tougher, The Reign of Leo VI (886-912): Politics and People: “Heraclius
… appears to have been intent on establishing himself as a new David …”.
Likewise, in the case
of Charlemagne, as I noted in my:
Solomon and Charlemagne. Part One: Life of
Charlemagne
…. Charlemagne has indeed been likened to King Solomon of old, e.g. by H.
Daniel-Rops (The Church in the Dark Ages, p. 395), who calls him a
“witness of God, after the style of Solomon …”, and he has been spoken of in
terms of the ancient kings of Israel; whilst Charlemagne’s father, Pepin
the Short, was hailed as “the new king David'.
[End of quote]
So it appears that Heraclius may have some strong competition from the West
in his ‘aspiring’ to be either the new King David or the new King Solomon!
Kaegi continues:
He and his writers
sought to associate his name with famous names from antiquity: Alexander,
Scipio and Constantine I, and with the Biblical Moses and David. Yet he will
have to compete with a new name: Muhammad.
Mackey’s comment: He is up there with
Scipio and Hannibal (another most dubious ‘historical’ character as well).
Of the characters conspicuous in history, that of Heraclius is one of the
most extraordinary and inconsistent. In the first and last years of a long
reign, the emperor appears to be the slave of sloth, of pleasure, or of
superstition, the careless and impotent spectator of the public calamities. But
the languid mists of the morning and evening are separated by the brightness of
the meridian sun; the Arcadius of the palace arose the Caesar of the camp; and
the honor of Rome and Heraclius was gloriously retrieved by the exploits and
trophies of six adventurous campaigns. [...] Since the days of Scipio and Hannibal, no bolder enterprise has been attempted than that which Heraclius
achieved for the deliverance of the empire.[52]
[End of quote]
As for “Muhammad” (Mohammed), we have found him out to be a massive
biblical composite.
Given all the biblico-historical baggage with which emperor Heraclius has
been fitted down through the centuries, it is little wonder then that,
according to Kaegi:
No preceding or
subsequent Byzantine emperor saw so much: the Araxes, the Khabur, Tigris, the
Euphrates, and the Sea of Galilee (Lake Tiberias).
….
Heraclius was
controversial while living and is controversial today. ….
Mackey’s comment: That last is
putting it mildly.
But how can one such
as Kaegi possibly (and all credit to him for trying) write a biography of
Heraclius when, according to Kaegi’s own testimony:
Lacunae exist in our
knowledge of Heraclius. First of all there are doubts about basic chronology,
sometimes due to conflicting reports in the sources, at other times due to
omissions of information about certain of his activities. Heraclius and
his advisers left no diaries, memoirs, or personal letters. There are no
archives of original documents. It is impossible to know biographical
details about him that might be standard for nineteenth- and twentieth-century
figures. The chronology is inexact for some important events.
Mackey’s comment: Phew! Yet, despite
that horrific sequence of negatives:
… it is not the
worst-documented period of the Byzantine Empire, for there is more
documentation than for some other reigns of the seventh century, and
for many of those of the fifth century.
Mackey’s comment: God help us!
Kaegi again:
Mysteries abound. The
ultimate goals of Heraclius remain obscure. What did Heraclius really
want? ....
I don’t think that we
shall ever know.
Part
Three:
Channeling
Alexander the Great
Heraclius, also often compared to Alexander the Great, appears to have
usurped some of the credentials of the famous Macedonian world-conqueror.
According to the supposed C7th AD historian, George of Pisidia, Heraclius
was more than comparable to Alexander the Great and to Timotheus (admiral).
This is discussed in the thesis by David M. Pritchard, The Emperor
Heraclius; Investigations into the Image of an Emperor:
It is not just
Heraclius' military skills that are praised in comparison with the pair of
Alexander the Great and Timotheus. They are both Greek commanders one of whom
was a general the other an admiral, and both of whom were operating in the same
part of the world as Heraclius. However, Heraclius is superior as a person, he
built his army up to be organised, well trained and brave, whereas Alexander
inherited his from his father. Heraclius had to battle against fortune whilst
Tyche smiled on Timotheus' endeavours: "Timotheus sleeping amidst battles,
then Fortune handing over the cities on this side and on that". … These
comparisons serve to summarise the virtues of Heraclius that George wants to
extol. He is compared with biblical figures to illustrate his piety and the
manner in which he has served God, whilst his military skills that are always
in evidence, are complemented by the aid of God, which raises him above his
pagan predecessors, thanks to that piety.
[End of quote]
But the comparisons
with Alexander become even more specific. Previously in this series we may have
been puzzled to learn that Heraclius had, in 627 AD, fought the “Battle of
Nineveh”, depsite the fact that the city of Nineveh no longer existed. Now,
most strangely again, Heraclius is credited with also having fought - just as
Alexander the Great had indeed done historically (in 333 BC, conventional
dating) - the Battle of Issus. We read about it in this uncritical piece,
“Echoing Alexander” http://larsbrownworth.com/blog/category/issus/battle-of-issus/
Pavel asks if Heraclius ever fought a battle at Issus- the
famous spot where Alexander the Great defeated a huge Persian army led by his
rival Darius.
There must have been something about the place that
attracted armies. By the time Heraclius showed up in 622 A.D. Issus had
seen two previous major, empire defining, winner-take-all clashes. The
first (and most famous) was in 333 BC when Alexander the Great met Darius and
broke the back of Persian power. The second was in 194 AD during the year
of the 5 emperors when the armies of Septimius Severus defeated his main
rival. (A few days after the battle the victorious Severus mopped up the
still defiant and relatively nearby Byzantium, where- anticipating Constantine
by more than a century- he rebuilt it in his own honor)
Heraclius in a way combined his two predecessors- a
Greek-speaking, Hellenized, Roman Emperor. In the autumn of 622, he
crossed the Aegean looking for the Persian army. They met at the famous
Issus, but unlike the previous two battles this one wasn’t decisive.
Neither army was really willing to come to grips and (despite an alleged
prediction by Mohammed that it would result in a major Roman victory), it was
more of a skirmish. Heraclius spent the next several years trying to
force a Persian engagement and nearly lost it all when he was ambushed crossing
a river. The tide turned in 624, but it wasn’t until December of 627-
half a decade after the battle of Issus- that he was able to fight a decisive
battle with the Persians.
[End of quote]
“… it wasn’t until
December of 627- half a decade after the battle of Issus- that he was able to
fight a decisive battle with the Persians”, that being, of course, the
fictitious Battle of Nineveh.
Modern historian J.
Bury followed George of Pisidia in his likening of Heraclius to Alexander.
Irfan Shahid tells of
it in The Iranian Factor in Byzantium during the Reign of Heraclius, at:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1291452.pdf
Bury conceived of
Heraclius as another Alexander. …. There is indeed something in the career of
Heraclius which is reminiscent of Alexander: mounted on his charger, Dorkon …
he fought on occasion a Homeric aristeia in much the same way that Alexander,
mounted on Bucephalus, had done before, though more significant is his role in
the contest of East and West and in the victory of the latter over the former,
represented by Persia.
…. Bury's views have
been accepted in whole or in part by a number of scholars … but they have been
rejected by others …. Ostrogorsky … in his History of the Byzantine State ….
After describing the linguistic change which took place during the reign of
Heraclius-the dropping of Latin and the use of Greek exclusively as the
official language of the Empire-he goes on to say:
Under the influence
of this Hellenization an important change, which was at the same time a
simplification, was made in the imperial title in the Byzantine Empire.
Heraclius gave up the complicated Latin form of address, and following popular
Greek usage he took the title of βασιλεύς. Thus the royal title of the ancient Greek kings, which had
hitherto only been used unofficially for the Byzantine Emperor, now replaced
the Roman titles, imperator [caesar] augustus. In future the Byzantine
Emperor was officially designated as Basileus and this was recognized as the
actual imperial title.
Alexander the Great
was, of course, a “king” (basileus)
of the Ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon.
Heraclius again, just
like “Alexander [who] … adopted the title ShahanShah (King of Kings) used by
the rulers of the First Persian Empire” (http://www.ancient.eu/Alexander_the_Great/),
“took for himself the
ancient Persian title of “King of Kings”, dropping the traditional Roman
imperial title of “Augustus”.” (http://www.themiddleages.net/people/heraclius.html).
Alexander the Great had, historically again (in 331 BC, conventional dating), fought and won the Battle of Gaugamela. Not surprisingly, now, so did Heraclius. Steven Ward writes of it (Immortal, Updated Edition: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces, p. 36):
Heraclius began a march
against the palace of the Great King at Dastagird. The Persian army, now under
the command of Razates,
avoided combat, probably hoping the Greek move across Anatolia would wear down
the soldiers and overextend their lines. An impatient Chosroes, however,
ordered his generals to fight. In December 627, Razates inauspicioulsy attacked
smaller Greek forces under Heraclius
near Gaugamela.
[End of quote]
With the armies at a
standstill, and as we read in Part Two: “Heraclius [who] … appears to
have been intent on establishing himself as a new David …”, famously fought
Razates (Razatis) in single combat and – yes, you guessed it – beheaded him.
A “new David” he was,
but also “the new Alexander”, the title of Gerrit J. Reinink’s article,
“'Heraclius, the New Alexander: Apocalyptic Prophecies during the Reign of
Heraclius” (Louvain: Peeters, 2002).
I shall conclude this
Part Three with a final parallel between Alexander and Heraclius as
found in Barbara Baert’s article, “Heraclius and Chosroes or The Desire for the
True Cross” (2005) http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Baert_Heraclius_Chosroes.shtml:
In an early
seventh-century source from Edessa, Heraclius is even compared with Alexander
the Great. [6]
….
According to the
Legend of the True Cross, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius (610-641) was
involved in a battle against Chosroes II (588-628?), the Sassanian king who had
stolen the cross in Jerusalem. Entering the astrological tower in Ctesiphon,
Heraclius finds Chosroes sitting at his mechanical throne. It was kept in
constant movement by horses, just as the universe is constantly moving. Into
the throne, Chosroes had placed the cross relic "as the sun," and an
image of a cock "as the ghost." Chosroes considered himself "as
the father." Heraclius decapitates Chosroes on his throne and restitutes
the cross to Jerusalem.
….
In 1878, M. J. Mohl
published a German translation of the Firdausi verses written down in
present-day Iran in 900 or thereabouts. [27] In this legend, a king
builds a colossal "Taq dis"; etymologically this means "equal to
the firmament" (fornici similis). [28] This
"celestial throne" was made of the richest materials and embellished
with all the signs of the zodiac. Four steps led up to a throne supported by
lions. The Persian astrological throne functioned within a ritual context. As
the center of the heavenly realm, the ruler was manifested as one who has power
to influence the stars. Indeed, the ruler is venerated as the entity into which
the cosmic powers have poured. The throne symbolizes this power.
In the Firdausi
verses, it is told that Alexander the Great, indifferent to the treasures of
the palace and unfamiliar with the astrological potential of the construction,
destroyed the dazzling "Taq dis." However, Chosroes II conceived the
plan of restoring the ancient astrological temple. T. Nöldeke suggests that the
specific passage of the legend in which Chosroes II appears was based on the
"Book of Chosroes," a lost Arabic chronicle that goes up to 628 AD. [29]
Cedrenos (Historiarum compendium, 1057) also supplemented his Elevation
of the Cross passage with a description of the astrological temple. [30]
The throne of
Chosroes corresponds to the planetarium or the cosmic clock. Philostratus [c.
200 AD] described such a structure in Babylon. The men’s hall in the palace had
a domed vault that resembled the heavens. The dome was decorated with sapphires
and with images of their gods, the planets. [31] ….
Part Four:
Avaric Empire a Fabrication?
Gyula Tóth claims that, while the Hungarian Chronicles fully support
Heribert Illig’s Phantom Time hypothesis, Illig himself has been apparently
unaware of these Chronicles.
Tóth has, in his
article, “The Hungarian chronicles and the phantom time hypothesis”, arrived at
some amazing conclusions regarding the need for an historical condensation
based upon the Hungarian evidence
What he discovers is
that the Magyar incursion is the same as that of the Avars, 300 years apart.
He commences his
article with a comment about Illig, this leading him into his introduction of
the Hungarian Chronicles:
…. When
Heribert Illig introduced his theory on the "fabricated middle ages"
(Erfundenes Mittelalter), or more known as Phantom time hypothesis; he mainly
referred to western Europe. As per say the many false records from the
Carolingian Age, the palace chapel of Aachen that predates by far its era with
its architectural solutions (Palatine Chapel), the peculiar calendar reform of
Pope Gregory XIII, the characteristic lacking of archeological evidence of the
era.
Naturally,
refers to peculiarities of the Byzantine Empire as well: the stoppage of
constructions, the decadence of literacy, the odd fairytale likeliness of
events, the incomprehensible and unjustified actions of the rewriting of
chronicles. His arguments on their own are heavy enough and stimulating. Illig
on the other hand never even mentions one thing, seemingly, the signs show that
he was not even aware of it.
This is none
other [than] the Hungarian chronicles. Those Hungarian chronicles, that back up
and confirm his theories with such a surge of elementary power, that it should
have been at least mentioned, never the less having its own chapter. …. While
in prominent history magazines they try to disproof and debunk that the time
line of our chronology has been [tampered] with, they don't even dare to
mention the Hungarian chronicles in these articles.
Tóth will be more
critical of Illig’s modus operandi in “The Phantom Dark Ages and Beyond”
https://www.scribd.com/document/299173251/The-Phantom-Dark-Ages-and-Beyond-Gyula-Toth
He now proceeds to
point out the conundrum of the lack of mention of the Avars (not to mention the
Khazars) supposedly situated between Attila the Hun and the Magyar incursions:
According to
the official version of history and the chronology that is in use, Atilla the
Hun existed in the first half of the four hundreds A.D., while the Magyar
Ingression happened at the end of the eight hundreds, in 895 A.D. The time span
between the two events are a merely 450 years, which should be considerable as
of historical value. The Hungarian chronicles portray the times of Atilla with
utter most detail. The same happens with the Magyar Ingression (secundus
ingressus). Pages on end with utter most details depiction of events upon
events. Therefore we rightfully might expect that the same would happen
about the
time passed between the two events. That our chroniclers write about those
events with at least the same accuracy. Let's say, about the avars and the
Avaric Empire that existed in this time period. To our amazement not only they
don't do such a thing, they don't even write down the name of the avars nor use
the word or expression avar, avaric. The dating of events don't even allow the
existence of an Avaric Empire of merely three hundred years. For right after
the death of Atilla the Magyar Ingression occurs. This happens after 104 years,
over five generations. Kálti Márk and Kézai Simon make the impression as if
they would be suffering of some sort of historical amnesia. Three hundred years
can't just be ignored as if they would be insignificant. How come they know
more about the Hunnic period then the Avaric Empire that predates the Magyar
Ingression? Let's admit it: is pure hair raising! Surely they must have had
some knowledge of the Avaric Empire, if not first hand at least second hand
information. No matter where our ancestors lived during the three hundred years
of Avaric rule, it must have been somewhere around the Carpathian Basin.
Contact of any kind is likely to take place! Assuming of course that such an
Avaric Empire ever existed. If not, it's not surprising that our chronicles
"omit" mentioning about such thing.
Not only the
Avaric Empire is "omitted", but also the Khazar Empire! This is again
mind bothering, for according to the official version of events, prior to the
Magyar Ingression our ancestors were supposed to be part of such empire from
times after the death of Atilla. Our chronicles haven't even ever heard of any
Khazar Empire.
I shall include this
other section from Tóth’s article, as it includes Heraclius and
Constantine
III or Constantine VII?
Illig in his
book takes account of the [eerie] resemblance between events of the 5th and the
10th century as well. "The (Byzantine) empire is weakened militarily by the
advancements of the Avars around the year 600 to the Balkan peninsula." - he writes.
Let's not forget: with the correction of 300 years the Avaric advancement
coincides with the Magyar advancement! For the Byzantine Empire had to face a
strong enemy from the north in the beginning of the nine hundreds, [namely] the
Magyars, the suspicion arises that the whole Avaric era is [none] other [than]
the duplicate of the Magyar Ingression backdated. Illig takes reference on
Manfred Zeller, who in his works about the peoples of steppe shows that: "the
number of the horse-archer peoples' in the first millennium doubles, filling
the empty centuries!" Therefore the Avars are just a duplicate! A duplicate created
beside the Hun-Magyar nations with one purpose, to fill in the empty centuries.
The archaeological artifacts denoted as Avaric could easily be that of the Huns
of Atilla's.
For now let's
return to the Byzantine Empire: in 602 under the name of Phocas, a fearsome and
untalented emperor sits on the throne by usurpation. At this time, the king of
the Persians, Khosrau II, taking advantage of the situation makes an attack on
Byzantine seemingly to avenge the murdered emperor. In 610 Heraclius puts an
end to the terror reign of Phocas, but the Persian advancements continue: they
take over Eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestina, Egypt and on the
Northern shores of Africa they reach till Tripoli. The occupation of Jerusalem
and the taking of the True Cross happened in 614 may 22nd after a three [week] siege. An interesting thing about Heraclius
is that he had a co-emperor. This is his own son who is already crowned in 613
at the age of two. Being at the side of his father with no contribution in
decision making. When he finally got to the throne he only ruled for a mere
four months. This being none other then Constantine III, who is mentioned in
the Chronicon Pictum about the time of the Magyar Ingression:
"... one
hundred and four years after the death of the Magyar king Atilla, in the times
of Emperor Constantine the III. and Pope Zachary - as can be found written in
the chronicles of the Romans - the Magyars rode out for the second time from
Scythia..."
It is very
interesting that the Chronicon Pictum's author sets the emperor from the time
of the Magyar Ingression as an emperor who lived in the six hundreds! As we
know according to Illig, the start of the phantom segment in our chronology
takes place from 614, shortly after the True Cross is taken away. In this time
Constantine III is already crowned, but only of three years of age. The time
when he gains power to reign falls within the phantom segment. If Illig is
right, then the character of Constantine III has to appear in some form in the
10th century as well. And as by magic, in the 10th century we also have a
Constantine! This time not the III but the VII! Namingly Constantine VII
Porphyrogennetos (the Purpleborn), who probably was one of the mastermind
behind the fabrication of our chronology. After this Illig analyzed
Constantine's life story. The story of the 10th century takes its beginning
where Emperor Leo VI the Wise within four years becomes a widower three times,
then finally Zoe Zaoutzaina gives birth to a son but illegitimate. When Leo
crowns this boy as co-emperor, he dies within a year, in 912. (One should keep
in mind that according to Illig in the year 911 the history starts anew. So in
912 the crowning of the illegitimate son belong to the real events of the time
line.) But this boy has no saying in the state's matter until the age of 24. In
this perspective bares resemblance with Constantine III, who also was crowned
as coemperor at a young age and only could take the state's power into his
hands much later on. So who do you think was the illegitimate son of Emperor
Leo from the 10th century? Well, none other then Constantine VII
Porphyrogennetos!
The
similarities are too remarkable between the life of Constantine III from the
7th century and that of Constantine VII from the 10th century. Worthy of note
is the matter of the regaining of the True Cross from the hands of the
Persians. It is not by mistake that Constantine VII has put it on the account
of Heraclius, by doing this he did nothing else but paying homage to his own
father's memory. For Heraclius in first of all not only being the father of
Constantine III from the 7th century, he was also the father of Constantine VII
of the 10th century! On top of all Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos arranges
the beginning of the real history in a way that would start with his own
coronation!
In
similarities not only the characters of the two emperors show resemblance, but
also the foreign policies of the Byzantine Empire of the 7th and 10th century.
As we've seen, in the 7th century the empire was troubled from the north by the
Avaric advancements, meanwhile, in the southeast by that of the Persians. In
the 10th century events repeat with different characters: in the north the
Magyars trouble the empire, while in the southeast the Arabic expansion does
the same. At this point one pauses for a brief moment and asks himself: isn't
it possible that the Avars of the 7th century are no more then the Magyars of
the 10th century? And the Arabic expansion of the 10th century is likely
to be the Persian expansion of the 7th century? So,
if the Byzantine Empire was troubled in the 7th century by Persians and Avars,
in the 10th century these become Arabs and Magyars!
Part
Five:
Heraclius of
Jerusalem
Strangely, then, we are finding that the
ancient city of Nineveh, destroyed in the late C7th BC, and not uncovered again
until the mid-C19th AD – a period of approximately two and a half millennia,
according to conventional estimates – experienced an eerie phase of
‘resurgence’ in the C7th AD, roughly halfway between these two cut-off points.
This is clearly a pseudo-history.
The neo-Assyrian empire of the Sargonids, of
the C8th-C7th’s BC - coupled with the contemporaneous drama of the Book of
Judith - appears to have left its mark in various unexpected places.
For instance, as we have discovered in this
series, the supposed C7th AD emperor of Byzantium, Heraclius, and his contemporaries,
are horribly anachronistic, notably in relation to the Assyrians and Nineveh:
Strangely, then, we are
finding that the ancient city of Nineveh, destroyed in the late C7th BC, and
not uncovered again until the mid-C19th AD – a period of approximately two and
a half millennia, according to conventional estimates – experienced an eerie
phase of ‘resurgence’ in the C7th AD, roughly halfway between these two cut-off
points. This is clearly a pseudo-history.
And in c. 960 AD, seeming flashes of the neo-Assyrian
empire startlingly re-emerge, again in a Judith-like context, in the supposedly
Ethiopian kingdom of “Aksum” (or Axum).
See e.g. my:
Judith the Simeonite and Judith the Semienite
But it does not end there.
Later again, in the C12th AD, according to
the history books, we find the supposed Seljuk Turks manifesting similar suspicious
likenesses to the greatest of the neo-Assyrian kings, with events recorded
about them strongly reminiscent, too, of the dramatic conflict described in the
Book of Judith. See my:
Seljuk,
Zengi, and the neo-Assyrians
In this “Zengi” article I also introduced
another supposedly historical Heraclius, but this time apparently ruling over,
not Byzantium, but Jerusalem. Thus I wrote:
Most interestingly, too, in light of my massive
historical query:
Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time
an “Heraclius” appears to get a re-run.
Firstly, king Chosroes II
(said to have been a Persian king) of c. 600 AD was opposed to the Byzantine
emperor Heraclius. Then, incredibly – or is it, anymore? – one named Heraclius
(var. Eraclius) emerges in c. 1128-1190/91 AD, now as Patriarch of Jerusalem,
at the time of Zengi.
Part Six:
Based on High
Priest Eliakim
“The importance of Heraclius' reign as a historical watershed was recognized by Gibbon two
hundred years ago. In Chapter 48 of the Decline and Fall he wrote: “From the time of Heraclius, the
Byzantine theatre is contracted and darkened: the line of empire, which had
been defined by the laws of Justinian and the arms of Belisarius, recedes on
all sides from our view; the Roman name, the proper subject of our inquiries, is reduced to a
narrow corner of Europe, to the lonely suburbs of Constantinople”.”
Introduction
Much of the information that we have
concerning the Byzantine emperor, Heraclius, supposedly of the C7th AD, is
either reminiscent of - or sometimes even directly related to - aspects of the
ancient neo-Assyrian era, and the famous Assyrian capital of Nineveh, dated to
about a millennium and a half earlier than c. 600 AD.
And the same remark applies to supposed
contemporaries of Heraclius, such as Mohammed.
All that has become abundantly apparent from
this present series (Part One to Part Five).
Most significantly, the supposed reign of
Heraclius of Byzantium (c. 610-641 AD) - thought to have been contemporaneous
with Mohammed (c. 570-632 AD) - coincides right
at the time when the likes of Illig and Niemitz claim that there was no
actual history (c. 614-911 AD). Their explanation of how it all came about is
entirely different, however, from the approach that I am using here. Here is a
brief summary of their “Phantom Time Hypothesis”.
One of the most
intriguing and highly controversial theories dealing with ancient history is
without doubt the “Phantom Time Hypothesis”.
According to this
unconventional and thought-provoking theory the Early Middle Ages (614-911 A.D)
never existed because the Western calendar was misdated.
The Phantom Time
Hypothesis was developed by German scientist Heribert Illig. Another German
researcher Hans-Ulrich Niemitz expanded on this theory after he accidentally
learned about the problem of faked documents in the Middle Ages.
Was
Charlemagne an invented character?
In his science
paper “Did the Early Middle Ages Really
Exist?” Dr.
Hans-Ulrich Niemitz points out that we can find medieval falsifications in
every kind of documents. There are literally thousands of recognized forgeries
from the Middle Ages. ….
…. These are facts that
speak in favor for the Phantom Time Hypothesis.
“The easiest way to
understand doubts about the accepted chronology and ‘well-known’ history is to
seriously systematize the problems of medieval research.
This will lead us to detect a pattern which proves my thesis and gives reason to assume that a phantom period of approximately 300 years has been inserted between 600 AD to 900 AD, either by accident, by misinterpretation of documents or by deliberate falsification.
This period and all
events that are supposed to have happened therein never existed. Buildings and
artifacts ascribed to this period really belong to other periods, “Dr.
Hans-Ulrich Niemitz says.
The reason why the Western calendar was misdated was because Holy Roman Emperor, Otto III, in collusion with Pope Sylvester II wanted to celebrate the end of the first millennium 297 years earlier.
By examining several
curious historical gaps the scientists were able to elaborate further on the
Phantom Time Hypothesis.
“We looked for ‘gaps’ in
special reports and publications, also for periods of stagnation or strange
events repeated in similar manner after approximately 300 years. I only refer
to some of a great number of puzzles: a gap in the history of building in
Constantinople (558 AD – 908 AD); a gap in the doctrine of faith, especially
the gap in the evolution of theory and meaning of purgatory (600 AD until ca.
1100), a 300-year-long reluctant introduction of farming techniques
(three-acre-system, horse with cummet) and of war techniques (stirrup), a gap
in the mosaic art (565 AD – 1018 AD), a repeated beginning of the German
orthography etc. etc. The puzzles of historiography led the way, pointing out
again and again the ‘gap’ which we soon termed ‘phantom time’.”
[End of quotes]
In Heraclius of Byzantium’s namesake, Heraclius (or Eraclius) of Jerusalem (see Part Five), we may be able to begin to discern why this strange situation may, in fact, have come about – what may be the biblico-Assyrian matrix for whatever about Heraclius is actually a pseudo history. As I said, my approach to the subject is quite different from that proposed by the exponents of the “Phantom Time Hypothesis”.
Heraclius (Eraclius)
and Eliakim
So far I have argued that the “Eliakim son of
Hilkiah”, who was King Hezekiah of Judah’s chief minister at the time of
Sennacherib of Assyria’s first great western invasion, was also the high priest
Joakim of the Book of Judith:
and
This would mean that Eliakim would have been
eye-witness to, and indeed deeply involved in, the two greatest dramas
involving the might of neo-Assyria against the land of Israel.
And these two cataclysmic events have
resounded down through time, being absorbed into mythologies and folklores, and
possibly even influencing some of the events that we would associate with real
Medieval history. See my:
World Renowned Judith of Bethulia
And this is how I would interpret Heraclius,
at least in those Assyrian-like elements associated with this most enigmatic
character.
Now, from this foundation it is a fairly
obvious step to identify, as the historical basis of Heraclius (Eraclius) the
patriarch of Jerusalem (C12th BC), the biblical Eliakim son of Hilkiah.
One can immediately see that the names
[H]Eraclius (Ἡράκλειος) and Eliakim (אֶלְיָקִים) are very similar, discounting the
Greco-Roman ending –ius, and also
taking into account the common interchangeability of the letters l and r. Thus, for example, we read, in the case of the Egyptian language
(http://www.kaa-umati.co.uk/bantu_rosetta_stones_part_c.htm):
The Ancient Egyptian language does not use the
consonant l but instead substitutes it with consonant r. Thus
consonants l and r are freely interchangeable without loss in
meaning. This type of a substitution was carried out to decipher CLEOPATRA’S
name where consonant r replaced consonant l in her name. CLEOPATRA’S
name was spelt CREOPATRA in the Ancient Egyptian language. Thus the name
CREOPATRA = CLEOPATRA.
[End of quote]
Now, reading through the useful Wikipedia article, entitled “Patriarch Heraclius of Jerusalem” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Heraclius_of_Jerusalem),
we can find some points of comparison between Heraclius of Jerusalem and
Eliakim (Joakim) in Jerusalem.
I take here the relevant parts,
adding to these my comments:
Heraclius or Eraclius (c. 1128 – 1190/91), was archbishop
of Caesarea and Latin
Patriarch of Jerusalem.
….
Comment: As in the case of Eliakim replacing the haughty Shebna (Isaiah 22),
Heraclius will be preferred to the presumptuous William of Tyre for the
patriarchate of Jerusalem. William may subsequently have been, like Shebna,
shamed:
In 1180, William considered himself the most
likely candidate for the patriarchate of Jerusalem, but the king, Baldwin
IV, delegated the choice
to his mother Agnes of Courtenay, Lady of Sidon, and her ladies, according
to the precedent of the previous election in 1157. Agnes and her committee
chose Heraclius.
….
The claim in the Old French Continuation
that [Heraclius] excommunicated William in 1183, forcing him to leave the
kingdom … is demonstrably false. No Western chroniclers noted what would (if
true) have been a major ecclesiastical scandal. ….
….
Comment: As with the biblical trio (Eliakim, Shebna, Joah: Isaiah 36:11) who would
face the Rabshakeh of the Assyrian
army, Heraclius will be part of an ambassadorial triumvirate during a crisis:
In 1184, Heraclius, along with Roger de Moulins, Grand Master of the Knights Hospitaller, and Arnold of Torroja, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, travelled to Europe to seek help in solving the
looming succession crisis in the kingdom.
Comment: Whilst Eliakim would be given “the key to the House of David” (Isaiah
22:22), Heraclius and his colleagues here:
… carried with them the keys of the city of
Jerusalem, the Holy Sepulchre and the Tower of David, along with other memorabilia. ….
Comment: Certain chroniclers refer to Heraclius in terms indicating his good
qualities:
…. Other chroniclers, Peter of Blois, Gerald of Wales,[1] Herbert of Bosham and Rigord, were more impressed by the Patriarch's spiritual qualities, describing
him in phrases such as "vir sanctus et prudens", "vir
sanctus" and "vitae sanctitatae non inferior". ….
Comment: There are some very strong similarities between the successful first
invasion of Sennacherib at the time of Eliakim, and the likewise successful
effort of Saladin at the time of Heraclius. Although Heraclius shape-shifts
here to become King Hezekiah - in the latter’s illness at the time, and in his
submission to the invader and stripping of the Temple of its gold and silver:
Defense of Jerusalem
In 1187, Saladin invaded the kingdom, and when Guy marched out to meet him, he asked
Heraclius to march along with him at the head of the army with the relic of the True Cross. As Heraclius was ill, the bishop
of Acre took his place.
Despite the relic, Saladin inflicted a crippling defeat on them at the Battle of Hattin on July 4, capturing the king. ….
….
In Jerusalem Heraclius urged Balian of Ibelin to lead the defence of the city against Saladin.
He ordered the stripping of the silver from the edicule in the Church
of the Holy Sepulchre to
strike coins with which to pay the city's defenders. But Jerusalem was finally forced
to capitulate on October
2. It was Heraclius who advised Balian to come to terms rather than fight to
the death, which, he argued, would condemn the city's women and children to
slavery and forced conversion. Heraclius helped Balian negotiate the surrender
with Saladin, who allowed him and most of the other Christians leave the city
unharmed.
He and Balian had organised, and contributed to, a
collection of 30,000 bezants to ransom the poorer citizens.
Comment: Compare this with 2 Kings 18:13-16:
In the
fourteenth year of King Hezekiah’s reign, Sennacherib king of Assyria attacked
all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. So
Hezekiah king of Judah sent this message to the king of Assyria at Lachish: ‘I
have done wrong. Withdraw from me, and I will pay whatever you demand of me’.
The king of Assyria exacted from Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents
of silver and thirty talents of gold. So
Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the temple of the Lord and in the treasuries of the royal palace.
At this time
Hezekiah king of Judah stripped off the gold with which he had covered the
doors and doorposts of the temple of the Lord, and gave
it to the king of Assyria.
Comment: Later we read of Heraclius bringing heart to the Crusaders at the siege
of Acre, this reminding one of the high priest Joakim’s (Eliakim’s) sharing in
the joy of Judith’s victory over “Holofernes”: “After the capture of Jerusalem,
Heraclius sought refuge in Antioch, together with the queen. He then took part in the Siege
of Acre, where his
arrival heartened the army”.
As in the Eliakim-Joakim scenario, the defenders of Jerusalem, initially
overwhelmed by the invader and utterly humiliated, would live to see, and
rejoice in, a shattering victory over that same enemy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Acre_(1189%E2%80%9391):
The Siege of Acre was one of the first
confrontations of the Third Crusade, lasting from August 28, 1189 until July 12,
1191, and the first time in history that the King of Jerusalem was compelled personally to see to the defence of
the Holy Land.[3] It was also the deadliest event of the
whole period of the Crusades for the Christian ruling class of the east.[4] Nevertheless, it was a key victory for
the Crusaders and a serious defeat for Saladin, who had hoped to destroy the
whole of the Crusader kingdom.
[End of quote]
If I am not deluded here about identifying so
much of supposed AD history - {and the full extent of it still remains to be
determined} - with the era of the neo-Assyrians, and especially the dramatic
events associated with the reign of king Sennacherib of Assyria and the
reflections of it in the Book of Judith, then there are some enormous
ramifications touching upon (a) a partly “phantom” AD ‘history’; on (b) the
“watershed” reign of emperor Heraclius of Byzantium (E. Scott: A Guide to the
Phantom Dark Age):
The importance
of Heraclius'
reign as a historical watershed was recognized by Gibbon two hundred years
ago. In Chapter 48 of the Decline
and Fall he wrote: “From the
time of Heraclius, the Byzantine theatre is contracted and darkened: the line
of empire, which had been defined by the laws of Justinian and the arms of
Belisarius, recedes on all sides from our view; the Roman name, the proper
subject of our
inquiries, is reduced to a narrow corner of Europe, to the lonely suburbs
of Constantinople” …
and, indeed, upon (c) the Crusades at their
most famous peak: the supposed capture of Jerusalem by Saladin.
Part Seven:
Balian of Ibelin
“At
that time Marduk-Baladan son of Baladan king of Babylon sent Hezekiah letters
and a gift, because he had heard of his illness and recovery. Hezekiah received the
envoys gladly and showed them what was in his storehouses—the silver, the gold,
the spices, the fine olive oil—his entire armory and everything found among his
treasures. There was nothing in his palace or in all his kingdom that Hezekiah
did not show them”.
Isaiah 39:1-2
Introduction
Previously I made the suggestion that the
supposedly Medieval Heraclius of Byzantium - Patriarch Heraclius of Jerusalem
may have been based - at least in part - upon the neo-Assyrian era and biblical
high priest of Jerusalem, Eliakim/Joakim, who, as I also claimed, figures in
the Book of Judith as “The High Priest Joakim” (4:14).
“There are some very strong similarities”, I had commented in relation to
this, “between the successful first invasion of Sennacherib at the time of
Eliakim, and the likewise successful effort of Saladin at the time of
Heraclius”.
But I had also noted that: “… Heraclius shape-shifts … to become King
Hezekiah - in the latter’s illness at the time, and in his submission to the
invader and stripping of the Temple of its gold and silver”.
In the modern tale, the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem is substituted with
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. For the problematic location of this Church,
anyway, see:
Golgotha
Situated near Altar of the Red Heifer
Balian and Baladan
If I am correct in likening Heraclius to Eliakim, and sometimes to King
Hezekiah of Judah, then there may be an opportunity to take this whole matter
further in the case of Balian of Ibelin, who was an ally of Heraclius during
Saladin’s invasion of Jerusalem, when Heraclius was ill. For King Hezekiah also
had a prominent ally of very similar name when he was ill, at the time of
Sennacherib’s invasion of Jerusalem: namely, Merodach-Baladan King of Babylon.
As we read in the quote from Isaiah (39:1) above, the father’s name was
“Baladan”. Now, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balian_of_Ibelin the father of Balian was “Barisan”.
And, recalling what we had discussed previously about the common
interchangeability of the letters l
and r, then these two names become
virtually identical: Baladan and Ba[l]isan.
And the very same comment applies to the son, (Merodach-) Baladan, since
Balian was also known as Barisan: “In Latin his name appears variously as Balian, Barisan, Barisanus, Balianus,
Balisan, and Balisanus”.
In the modern story the original details get all sifted around, of course.
Thus, whereas in the biblical accounts (also 2 Kings 20:12-15) the envoys
of the Babylonian king, Merodach-baladan, come to Jerusalem and are shown all
of the treasures of which its king can boast, in the case of Balian, he himself
is present in Jerusalem handling the city’s wealth: “Heraclius helped Balian
negotiate the surrender with Saladin, who allowed him and most of the other
Christians leave the city unharmed. He and Balian had organised, and
contributed to, a collection of 30,000 bezants to ransom the poorer citizens”.
And again, whilst Merodach-baladan “… sent Hezekiah
letters and a gift, because he had heard of his illness and recovery”, Balian
of Ibelin will assist the previously ill Heraclius by leading the defence of
Jerusalem against Saladin.
No comments:
Post a Comment